On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 23:43:32 GMT, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from zhanataya contains these words:

On 21 Feb 2003 17:47:54 -0800, (Lee Hall) wrote:

Perhaps I should preface my feeble attempts at humor with "THIS IS A JOKE".
I concur with Paghat, however, that he is anything but harmless.

Mebbe so. But I sure hope that thing I saw on ABC isn't what passes
for a typical documentary in the UK.

It was what we in the UK call an interview, Zhan. One of the
differences between a documentary and a voluntary face to face recorded
interview, is that the first can be made without the knowledge, consent
or active participation of its subject.An interview can only happen with
the full co-operation of its subject.

Jackson's defenders might ask themselves why he deliberately chose to be
interviewed by a UK TV journalist who is most famous for his TV
interview with Princess Diana about her adulterous failed marriage; in
which she too was excruciatingly self-revelatory, indiscreet and
deliberately publicity-seeking.

Janet.

Such anger. I suppose you didn't see Jackson's camera view of what really was
said and took place during the formal interviews of the documentary. He allowed
this particular journalist to do it because he "thought" he was dealing with a
journalist, not a sensationalist who was writing for the tabloids...or in that
sensational style at the very least.

I see MJ as an eccentric, possibly mildly insane person, who has not been able
to walk outside his gates since he was 9 years old. I never saw him then, nor
do I see him now as a freak of nature, or child molester.

BTW, Prince Charles was cheating on Dianna from way back before they were
married.